Did England rise up when we had 13 years of Scottish Chancellors and 3 years (or 13, depending on perspective) of Scottish Prime Minister(s) under Labour?
It's indefensible to argue people should be allowed to vote on matters which affect none of their constituents.
I agree. But as Hopi points out because of England's size, English MPs could vote on issues that are ostensibly English only, but which could have a direct and very negative impact on people living in other parts of the UK.
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
They are not voting on the status of the South of Scotland they are voting on Scotland's future.
They believe that all of Scotland should stay part of the UK, not that their bit should - their bit is part of Scotland.
I will lay you £10 that should Scotland vote to become independent and someone organised a vote to see if the Borders should separate from Scotland and become part of the rUK then that vote would be defeated by at least 80-to-20 at a minimum.
I am not against devolution within England. I think an English Parliament may solve an identity issue, but does not ultimately bring power much closer to the people (a Parliament for 56 million rather than 64 million). I am sympathetic to the view that such internal devolution though should be determined by some form of English political entity. This is not actually a deal breaker for me as ultimately England still has 85% of the votes in the UK Parliament.
I think the asymmetry of our constitution is one of its strengths; it evolves, is flexible and recognises the considerable differences in populations size across the union. Coupled with a view that constitutional change should also have some groundswell of organic support from the public, I am not sure a separate English Parliament with its own building etc is needed. It may evolve as such over time, but EV4EL seems a good start. By all means, as I noted earlier, UK MPs in English constituencies could change title when looking at English laws only. They could have different salaries, all of which helps deal with the 'two types of MP charge'.
There remains an issue of English and Wales legislation; would a formal separation of Wales from England be too costly, counter-productive (in decoupling Wales from England in some way) and over distinct majorities. But as noted before, surely it is simply up to the UK government to ensure they get consent from the English 'Parliament' (ie. Grand Committee) a move which could empower the legislature?
"Imagine if an English parliament decide to cut income tax and corporation tax below that paid in Scotland, while temporarily increasing public spending above levels in Scotland. It would decimate the Scottish economy,"
It would also decimate the English economy as we plunged into fiscal crisis. Stupid example.
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
What democratic rights? Everyone has one vote. Their 'no' vote doesnt overturn a 'yes' majority in the country as a whole. Is everyone taking leave of their senses?
Really? Haven't noticed my polling card. Oh yes, I forgot. I and 50 million others haven't a say in the destruction of my country. Does this make me angry? You bet it does.
This was much discussed at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement, and is based on the basic principle that independence (etc.) plebiscites are based on the voting of the inhabitants of the area in question, not the wider political entity from which their departure (etc). is mooted.
Consider what happens if a simple yes/no indyref is extended to the rest of the UK. The logical permutations (ignoring ties) are:
Scots vote Yes, EWNI Yes - fine. Scots vote No, EWNI No - fine. Scots vote No, EWNI Yes - errr ... Scots vote Yes, EWNI vote No. Which is presumably what you may have in mind. But what would the world say if the Scots voted to go but the rest voted not to let them?
(Additional devolution (I repeat, not devomax, which is not on offer) is of course outwith this, and for our various elected representatives to decide, and possibly refer back to the people.)
Agreed not everyone in EWNI, but Scottish born UK residents , who would automtically qualify for Scottish citizenship, should have been given the vote. It would be one electorate, not a split one. Still, it wasn't done. Big mistake of Mr Cameron. The result will stand.
Also, the vast majority of Scottish medal winners at the recent Commonwealth Games are residents elsewhere in the UK. They can win medals for Scotland but they can't vote for Scotland.
"I have a confession this morning, which is that I am not enjoying covering the Scottish referendum. I should be. All journalists live for the chance to report on great events and they don’t come more momentous than the potential break-up of the UK.
But pretty much all reporters I chatted to yesterday agreed that the level of abuse and even intimidation being meted out by some in the ‘Yes’ campaign was making this referendum a rather unpleasant experience.
And whilst I am sure both signs have been guilty, the truth - uncomfortable as it is to say it – is that most of the heckling and abuse does seem to be coming from the Nationalists."
Off topic back in the office after my flight from Leeds Bradford to Belfast was cancelled. Interesting experience trying to leave an airport from airside without flying. No staff visible, no info desk, ended up back at security who had to radio for an escort.
I thought that after you checked in and passed security it is the airline's responsibility to 'look after you'?
Leeds Bradford Airport has no information desks of any description airside ("we need one" said security bloke). FlyBe appeared to have no staff airside. Check in at the gate was to use Servisair staff (who we were told to speak to) not that we knew which gate they were at and even when we were told they were hiding in an office.
Not sure whose fault it was but it didn't enamour me to the airport. Flights get cancelled sometimes - no problem, as long as people are given information.
If Scottish (and Welsh & NI?) MPs are barred from voting on English matters then a Labour government may find it difficult to pass any domestic legislation. Difficult but not impossible. In practice a consensus would have to be sought whereby a majority could be forthcoming. This is not unheard of elsewhere - it is common place in the US and sometimes happens in France too.
I fear that all of the self-serving and piecemeal constitutional tinkering which has taken place since 1997 has proved to be bad. Ideally it should all be scrapped and we should start again. Devolution should be about the strengthening of local government and direct democracy, in which all parts of the UK are treated equally.
Retaining the Barnett formula is a serious and unnecessary error. By all means allow the Scottish Parliamentary extend its tax raising powers but the corollary should be a sharp reduction, ideally elimination, of this subvention from the rest of the UK.
There is a clear case for varying funding to reflect factors beyond politicians or voters control - such as geography. Its much more cost effective to deliver public services in a densely populated England than a sparsely populated Scotland - and I think that should be reflected in central funding.
I doubt however that the Barnett formula is still up to the job - and this 'Three Leader Vow' will come back to bite them with a vengeance.
They have just made UKIP's job a lot easier......
Like most people you are ignorant about the Barnett formula.
I guess thats why I posted Lord Barnett's testimony to the HoL Committee investigating it then......
That has nothing to do with it.
The simple fact is that the Barnett formula does not give extra spending to Scotland - indeed it's purpose is quite the opposite, to equalise spending per capita.
The reason it hasn't worked is because the relative population of Scotland has declined compared to that of England, and so one is trying to hit a moving target. It is only the combination of this particular set of circumstances with the formula that has resulted in higher per capita spending in Scotland. It is not an intrinsic quality of the formula.
Naturally, given that circumstances are different to those envisaged when the formula was devised - namely that the population of Scotland has declined relative to that of England - then it is sensible to consider whether to implement a different formula that would lead to a more rapid convergence and cope with such population shifts. Or indeed a different form of allocating spending that took account of geographical dispersion, if one so wished. This is as Lord Barnett says.
What I was taking issue with was the argument that the Barnett formula is somehow intrinsically beneficial to Scotland, and represents an intention to subsidise Scotland from England. It isn't. Had Scotland's population grown more quickly than England's since it was introduced then it is possible that per capita spending would now be higher in England than in Scotland - thanks to the Barnett formula.
But your argument merely confirms what others here are arguing. The formula is out dated and should not be part of the vow. Yes an agreement probably should have a formula attached to it, but it needs to be a new one based on current factors not one based on data that is 30 years out of date.
That is right and it is why the tories were happy to go even further than Labour in terms of tax raising powers. Labour is the one facing the crisis here. If the quid pro quo of devo max is that their cohort from Scotland is not much use to them in the HoC (as opposed to now where they get the best of both worlds, to coin a phrase) that is a major blow to them.
Cameron will be in a strong position to push this through now and the Labour/Lib Dem Coalition of vested interests will no longer be able to stop it. If this is in place before the next election, as Cameron is promising, the outcome of that election is going to be a lot more difficult to ascertain, let alone predict.
Spot-on. People are misreading this - the Conservative manifesto promised more powers for the Scottish parliament and "new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries". Unfortunately, without a majority, it hasn't been possible to deliver the latter, but I think there is now a very good possibility that Labour, and the LibDems, have been manoeuvred into a position where they can no longer try to maintain the pretence that it's OK for Scottish MPs to vote on non-Scottish issues.
This is news to me. Why is Dave so utterly coy about EVFEL now then? If it's a NO and the Devomax legislation includes the manifesto promise then you are right and LibLab opposition would be very very hard to justify. (Doesn't mean they wouldn't though). My serious concern though is that Dave is just not that tough, not that determined, not that sensible. He'd give Scotland the world now and England nothing. I don't trust him. And if it's nothing for England UKIP gain a voter. If there is EVFEL for England my Tory vote is 100% nailed on.
Just as an aside, I am now convinced that Richard Tyndall is right: the flip-side of devomax is simply EV4EL.
We need a proper constitutional settlement that has buy-in from all sides. Pushing something through really is not the answer, otherwise you will just end up with a situation that will lead to big problems further down the line when for example, there is a change of government and it gets to implement what it thinks works best to its advantage.
Hopi Sen has written an interesting piece on the muddle we are now in and a possible solution:
The basic issues is that England entirely dominates the Union. It’s as if the United States was only New York State, West Virginia and Alaska. In such a situation it almost becomes nonsensical to allow New York to have its own policy setting bodies, as almost all the time it would get the President and Congress it voted for, and on devolved issues, the size and economic power of the largest state means any decision it made would have huge repercussions for the other states.
Imagine if an English parliament decide to cut income tax and corporation tax below that paid in Scotland, while temporarily increasing public spending above levels in Scotland. It would decimate the Scottish economy, without Scotland having any kind of say in the matter. The same is not true in reverse. What if English public services became substantially worse than Scottish ones and we started seeing major population transfer?
So though it doesn’t make much constitutional sense, there’s a good political reason for England to show a little restraint. Exploiting England’s dominant position in the Union to create a ‘differentiated’ England without the consent of other nations would be destructive, and the cost of allowing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland an unequal voice over English services is usually relatively low.
I know it's Hopi's opinion, but it's utter boll***s. It's effectively creating an underlying democratic deficit by saying 'hey lets just allow the smaller countries undue influence'.
It's wrong, it's unfair, it's damaging, and it needs to change. The union as we know it, is dead, because the fundamental ties between power have been loosened,
If you are arguing for a full, considered and new constitutional settlement then I could not agree more.
Did England rise up when we had 13 years of Scottish Chancellors and 3 years (or 13, depending on perspective) of Scottish Prime Minister(s) under Labour?
It's indefensible to argue people should be allowed to vote on matters which affect none of their constituents.
I agree. But as Hopi points out because of England's size, English MPs could vote on issues that are ostensibly English only, but which could have a direct and very negative impact on people living in other parts of the UK.
So what. There's more of us, and we pay money to other parts of the UK.
"Imagine if an English parliament decide to cut income tax and corporation tax below that paid in Scotland, while temporarily increasing public spending above levels in Scotland. It would decimate the Scottish economy,"
It would also decimate the English economy as we plunged into fiscal crisis. Stupid example.
Similar things have happened many times before. It's what politicians do.
Did England rise up when we had 13 years of Scottish Chancellors and 3 years (or 13, depending on perspective) of Scottish Prime Minister(s) under Labour?
It's indefensible to argue people should be allowed to vote on matters which affect none of their constituents.
I agree. But as Hopi points out because of England's size, English MPs could vote on issues that are ostensibly English only, but which could have a direct and very negative impact on people living in other parts of the UK.
So what. There's more of us, and we pay money to other parts of the UK.
I suppose it depends if you think the Union is worth maintaining. Obviously, England could just go its own way.
So England, with 85% of the UK's population is facing a £1bn black hole, while with 8% of the population in Scotland, the Scottish run NHS Scotland, responsibility of the SNP Government is facing a £0.5bn hole......proportionately, who would you say has done the better job?
No black hole in Scotland, I presume you are parroting the BBC lies about efficiency savings in one part of the NHS , overall budget increasing in real terms and guess what unlike in Toryland we are actually paying nurses a little bit extra for their valued work rather than putting the money in our chums pockets by privatising it.
Did England rise up when we had 13 years of Scottish Chancellors and 3 years (or 13, depending on perspective) of Scottish Prime Minister(s) under Labour?
It's indefensible to argue people should be allowed to vote on matters which affect none of their constituents.
I agree. But as Hopi points out because of England's size, English MPs could vote on issues that are ostensibly English only, but which could have a direct and very negative impact on people living in other parts of the UK.
The trouble with that argument is that he seems to be groping towards saying that in the wake of the departure of one region that was more cost and blo ody trouble than it was worth, we should identify and appoint another to the same role.
Well, f>ck that. I have always wanted a Yes but been resigned to a No. What really, really raises my ire is the prospect that we'll get the No, but it turns out to mean "Yes and we'll continue to send the English the bill".
Retaining the Barnett formula is a serious and unnecessary error. By all means allow the Scottish Parliamentary extend its tax raising powers but the corollary should be a sharp reduction, ideally elimination, of this subvention from the rest of the UK.
There is a clear case for varying funding to reflect factors beyond politicians or voters control - such as geography. Its much more cost effective to deliver public services in a densely populated England than a sparsely populated Scotland - and I think that should be reflected in central funding.
I doubt however that the Barnett formula is still up to the job - and this 'Three Leader Vow' will come back to bite them with a vengeance.
They have just made UKIP's job a lot easier......
Like most people you are ignorant about the Barnett formula.
I guess thats why I posted Lord Barnett's testimony to the HoL Committee investigating it then......
That has nothing to do with it.
The simple fact is that the Barnett formula does not give extra spending to Scotland - indeed it's purpose is quite the opposite, to equalise spending per capita.
The reason it hasn't worked is because the relative population of Scotland has declined compared to that of England, and so one is trying to hit a moving target. It is only the combination of this particular set of circumstances with the formula that has resulted in higher per capita spending in Scotland. It is not an intrinsic quality of the formula.
Naturally, given that circumstances are different to those envisaged when the formula was devised - namely that the population of Scotland has declined relative to that of England - then it is sensible to consider whether to implement a different formula that would lead to a more rapid convergence and cope with such population shifts. Or indeed a different form of allocating spending that took account of geographical dispersion, if one so wished. This is as Lord Barnett says.
What I was taking issue with was the argument that the Barnett formula is somehow intrinsically beneficial to Scotland, and represents an intention to subsidise Scotland from England. It isn't. Had Scotland's population grown more quickly than England's since it was introduced then it is possible that per capita spending would now be higher in England than in Scotland - thanks to the Barnett formula.
However when you are a rabid Tory anti scottish person it has all to do with it , she just wants us beggared regardless of facts.
Agreed not everyone in EWNI, but Scottish born UK residents , who would automtically qualify for Scottish citizenship, should have been given the vote. It would be one electorate, not a split one. Still, it wasn't done. Big mistake of Mr Cameron. The result will stand.
Again, UK legislation.
Mmmm, I see what you are getting at, but if you are using the prospect of being offered Scots citizenship (i.e. a passport) as a criterion to modify the basic rules, then surely that in common justice has to be extended to other Scots not living in the UK as they are also affected - everyone from my Aussie cousin (and, indeed, Rupert Murdoch) to my colleague in the Canadian badlands.
And remember that the putative qualification is to have a Scottish grandparent. Which makes the problem at least twice as bad.
Documentnation, verification, etc. etc.
(Also, that becomes an awfully old-fashioned romantic nationalist electorate. Imagine what the PBer would have said ...)
In any case, they are all getting a bonus, so to speak, which is strictly optional, as they can always keep their current UK (or Oz, or Vanadian, etc.) passports as I understand it. The converse of that argument, is that it modifies their UK nationality, which is fair enough. But that is true of anyone with a UK passport, and that returns to the issue which I raised at the start (I think it was the root of the legal challenge by the chap in York, which was rejected, but I could be wrong).
If Scottish (and Welsh & NI?) MPs are barred from voting on English matters then a Labour government may find it difficult to pass any domestic legislation. Difficult but not impossible. In practice a consensus would have to be sought whereby a majority could be forthcoming. This is not unheard of elsewhere - it is common place in the US and sometimes happens in France too.
I fear that all of the self-serving and piecemeal constitutional tinkering which has taken place since 1997 has proved to be bad. Ideally it should all be scrapped and we should start again. Devolution should be about the strengthening of local government and direct democracy, in which all parts of the UK are treated equally.
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
What democratic rights? Everyone has one vote. Their 'no' vote doesnt overturn a 'yes' majority in the country as a whole. Is everyone taking leave of their senses?
Really? Haven't noticed my polling card. Oh yes, I forgot. I and 50 million others haven't a say in the destruction of my country. Does this make me angry? You bet it does.
This was much discussed at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement, and is based on the basic principle that independence (etc.) plebiscites are based on the voting of the inhabitants of the area in question, not the wider political entity from which their departure (etc). is mooted.
Consider what happens if a simple yes/no indyref is extended to the rest of the UK. The logical permutations (ignoring ties) are:
Scots vote Yes, EWNI Yes - fine. Scots vote No, EWNI No - fine. Scots vote No, EWNI Yes - errr ... Scots vote Yes, EWNI vote No. Which is presumably what you may have in mind. But what would the world say if the Scots voted to go but the rest voted not to let them?
(Additional devolution (I repeat, not devomax, which is not on offer) is of course outwith this, and for our various elected representatives to decide, and possibly refer back to the people.)
Agreed not everyone in EWNI, but Scottish born UK residents , who would automtically qualify for Scottish citizenship, should have been given the vote. It would be one electorate, not a split one. Still, it wasn't done. Big mistake of Mr Cameron. The result will stand.
Also, the vast majority of Scottish medal winners at the recent Commonwealth Games are residents elsewhere in the UK. They can win medals for Scotland but they can't vote for Scotland.
There seems no reason why that couldn't stop right now. If the GB judo team lived and trained in Japan at Japan's expense, how would they be British, exactly?
Did England rise up when we had 13 years of Scottish Chancellors and 3 years (or 13, depending on perspective) of Scottish Prime Minister(s) under Labour?
It's indefensible to argue people should be allowed to vote on matters which affect none of their constituents.
I agree. But as Hopi points out because of England's size, English MPs could vote on issues that are ostensibly English only, but which could have a direct and very negative impact on people living in other parts of the UK.
So what. There's more of us, and we pay money to other parts of the UK.
I suppose it depends if you think the Union is worth maintaining. Obviously, England could just go its own way.
Why shouldn't we? If a union is worth anything then it has to work for all parties. What Hopi is suggesting is a one-sided union which works only in the interest of minor parties.
Agreed not everyone in EWNI, but Scottish born UK residents , who would automtically qualify for Scottish citizenship, should have been given the vote. It would be one electorate, not a split one.
It's unlikely that all UK residents born in Scotland would qualify for Scottish citizenship. (They certainly don't all qualify for UK citizenship now.) But even if that were true, why choose the electorate on the basis of what it would be if Yes were to win? There was no serious alternative to having the electorate the same as it is for a SGE.
"I have a confession this morning, which is that I am not enjoying covering the Scottish referendum. I should be. All journalists live for the chance to report on great events and they don’t come more momentous than the potential break-up of the UK.
But pretty much all reporters I chatted to yesterday agreed that the level of abuse and even intimidation being meted out by some in the ‘Yes’ campaign was making this referendum a rather unpleasant experience.
And whilst I am sure both signs have been guilty, the truth - uncomfortable as it is to say it – is that most of the heckling and abuse does seem to be coming from the Nationalists."
Political leaders should echo the call yesterday from the NUJ to ensure the health and safety of those engaged in their legal business,carrying out their professional duties for an employer.Employers must act to apply the 1974 Health and Safety at Work-40 years old and Michael Foot's huge contribution to humanity.Employers have statutory duties and must apply them.This includes my old colleagues in local government and I can assure you the last thing the indyref needs is me coming up there to defend my sisters and brothers but Unison and Unite may have to echo the NUJ's position,despite the risk that this may threaten neutrality-it must apply equally to each side in a fair manner. I have no knowledge of Scottish criminal law but I know all criminal laws need to be enforced.The Police have a statutory duty too to protect the public safety of citizens too. Action is needed,not words.
There is a clear case for varying funding to reflect factors beyond politicians or voters control - such as geography. Its much more cost effective to deliver public services in a densely populated England than a sparsely populated Scotland - and I think that should be reflected in central funding.
I doubt however that the Barnett formula is still up to the job - and this 'Three Leader Vow' will come back to bite them with a vengeance.
They have just made UKIP's job a lot easier......
Like most people you are ignorant about the Barnett formula.
I guess thats why I posted Lord Barnett's testimony to the HoL Committee investigating it then......
That has nothing to do with it.
The simple fact is that the Barnett formula does not give extra spending to Scotland - indeed it's purpose is quite the opposite, to equalise spending per capita.
The reason it hasn't worked is because the relative population of Scotland has declined compared to that of England, and so one is trying to hit a moving target. It is only the combination of this particular set of circumstances with the formula that has resulted in higher per capita spending in Scotland. It is not an intrinsic quality of the formula.
Naturally, given that circumstances are different to those envisaged when the formula was devised - namely that the population of Scotland has declined relative to that of England - then it is sensible to consider whether to implement a different formula that would lead to a more rapid convergence and cope with such population shifts. Or indeed a different form of allocating spending that took account of geographical dispersion, if one so wished. This is as Lord Barnett says.
What I was taking issue with was the argument that the Barnett formula is somehow intrinsically beneficial to Scotland, and represents an intention to subsidise Scotland from England. It isn't. Had Scotland's population grown more quickly than England's since it was introduced then it is possible that per capita spending would now be higher in England than in Scotland - thanks to the Barnett formula.
But your argument merely confirms what others here are arguing. The formula is out dated and should not be part of the vow. Yes an agreement probably should have a formula attached to it, but it needs to be a new one based on current factors not one based on data that is 30 years out of date.
Following devolution the Labour government modified the Barnett formula to use up-to-date population estimates, so it does not use data that is 30 years out of date.
Did England rise up when we had 13 years of Scottish Chancellors and 3 years (or 13, depending on perspective) of Scottish Prime Minister(s) under Labour?
It's indefensible to argue people should be allowed to vote on matters which affect none of their constituents.
I agree. But as Hopi points out because of England's size, English MPs could vote on issues that are ostensibly English only, but which could have a direct and very negative impact on people living in other parts of the UK.
The trouble with that argument is that he seems to be groping towards saying that in the wake of the departure of one region that was more cost and blo ody trouble than it was worth, we should identify and appoint another to the same role.
Well, f>ck that. I have always wanted a Yes but been resigned to a No. What really, really raises my ire is the prospect that No turns out to mean "Yes and we'll continue to send the English the bill".
Absolutely - this all comes down to whether you believe the Union is worth preserving. If you do, then you also have to accept that as by far the biggest party England is always going to be a net giver, but that we maybe get back an awful lot in other ways. As a redistributionist I have no problem with that, but I can see why those on the right would.
Did England rise up when we had 13 years of Scottish Chancellors and 3 years (or 13, depending on perspective) of Scottish Prime Minister(s) under Labour?
It's indefensible to argue people should be allowed to vote on matters which affect none of their constituents.
I agree. But as Hopi points out because of England's size, English MPs could vote on issues that are ostensibly English only, but which could have a direct and very negative impact on people living in other parts of the UK.
So what. There's more of us, and we pay money to other parts of the UK.
I suppose it depends if you think the Union is worth maintaining. Obviously, England could just go its own way.
Maybe the Union can only be maintained if it is seen as equitable to all parties. Start from that perspective and I think you come to a different conclusion than does Mr. Sen.
I'm not even arguing for the status quo on the Barnett Formula, it's just that I think it would be hard to have a sensible discussion about what to replace it with if people don't even know how it works in the first place.
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
What democratic rights? Everyone has one vote. Their 'no' vote doesnt overturn a 'yes' majority in the country as a whole. Is everyone taking leave of their senses?
Only the Yes voters. If (if) the borders rebel then how does Salmond propose to keep them?
"Imagine if an English parliament decide to cut income tax and corporation tax below that paid in Scotland, while temporarily increasing public spending above levels in Scotland. It would decimate the Scottish economy,"
It would also decimate the English economy as we plunged into fiscal crisis. Stupid example.
That is right and it is why the tories were happy to go even further than Labour in terms of tax raising powers. Labour is the one facing the crisis here. If the quid pro quo of devo max is that their cohort from Scotland is not much use to them in the HoC (as opposed to now where they get the best of both worlds, to coin a phrase) that is a major blow to them.
Cameron will be in a strong position to push this through now and the Labour/Lib Dem Coalition of vested interests will no longer be able to stop it. If this is in place before the next election, as Cameron is promising, the outcome of that election is going to be a lot more difficult to ascertain, let alone predict.
Spot-on. People are misreading this - the Conservative manifesto promised more powers for the Scottish parliament and "new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries". Unfortunately, without a majority, it hasn't been possible to deliver the latter, but I think there is now a very good possibility that Labour, and the LibDems, have been manoeuvred into a position where they can no longer try to maintain the pretence that it's OK for Scottish MPs to vote on non-Scottish issues.
The loophole that Labour and the Lib Dems have tried to wriggle through is that because of the Barnett consequentials almost every financial decision in England has knock on effects in Scotland giving them an interest.
This really does not bear any sensible analysis of course because the logical consequence is that they would always vote for higher spending so that their own constituents get the benefit of any increase.
I was surprised at the commitment to Barnett in the Vow and can only guess that this was the price that Labour insisted had to be paid. But what should be made clear is that this provides an envelope within which spending decisions are made, just as it is within the Scottish budget.
So England can choose whether to spend more on health or education or pensions or whatever within an agreed envelope and how they choose to allocate that spending is none of the Scottish members' concern and has no effect on their constituents. Of course all MPs will have an equal say in determining what size the envelope might be in any given year.
Did England rise up when we had 13 years of Scottish Chancellors and 3 years (or 13, depending on perspective) of Scottish Prime Minister(s) under Labour?
It's indefensible to argue people should be allowed to vote on matters which affect none of their constituents.
I agree. But as Hopi points out because of England's size, English MPs could vote on issues that are ostensibly English only, but which could have a direct and very negative impact on people living in other parts of the UK.
The trouble with that argument is that he seems to be groping towards saying that in the wake of the departure of one region that was more cost and blo ody trouble than it was worth, we should identify and appoint another to the same role.
Well, f>ck that. I have always wanted a Yes but been resigned to a No. What really, really raises my ire is the prospect that No turns out to mean "Yes and we'll continue to send the English the bill".
Absolutely - this all comes down to whether you believe the Union is worth preserving. If you do, then you also have to accept that as by far the biggest party England is always going to be a net giver, but that we maybe get back an awful lot in other ways. As a redistributionist I have no problem with that, but I can see why those on the right would.
I'm amenable to being persuaded on the matter; it is plausible enough, as is the opposite - that the regions gain disproportionately more. Over a long enough time frame I doubt the subsidy would also be seen to flow the same way.
However, what I don't appreciate is the default assumption that England should expect always to be mulcted to appease one of the regions, and that if Scotland goes, we should privilege other regions in the same way.
"I have a confession this morning, which is that I am not enjoying covering the Scottish referendum. I should be. All journalists live for the chance to report on great events and they don’t come more momentous than the potential break-up of the UK.
But pretty much all reporters I chatted to yesterday agreed that the level of abuse and even intimidation being meted out by some in the ‘Yes’ campaign was making this referendum a rather unpleasant experience.
And whilst I am sure both signs have been guilty, the truth - uncomfortable as it is to say it – is that most of the heckling and abuse does seem to be coming from the Nationalists."
Awwwww poor diddums, he should get himself carted then and get a job he is fit for, another whinging southern jessie.
"Imagine if an English parliament decide to cut income tax and corporation tax below that paid in Scotland, while temporarily increasing public spending above levels in Scotland. It would decimate the Scottish economy,"
It would also decimate the English economy as we plunged into fiscal crisis. Stupid example.
S'funny how lower corporation tax in Ireland hasn't destroyed the N.Irish economy. And that tax variations between US states hasn't resulted in collapse and ruin.
There is a clear case for varying funding to reflect factors beyond politicians or voters control - such as geography. Its much more cost effective to deliver public services in a densely populated England than a sparsely populated Scotland - and I think that should be reflected in central funding.
I doubt however that the Barnett formula is still up to the job - and this 'Three Leader Vow' will come back to bite them with a vengeance.
They have just made UKIP's job a lot easier......
Like most people you are ignorant about the Barnett formula.
I guess thats why I posted Lord Barnett's testimony to the HoL Committee investigating it then......
That has nothing to do with it.
The simple fact is that the Barnett formula does not give extra spending to Scotland - indeed it's purpose is quite the opposite, to equalise spending per capita.
The reason it hasn't worked is because the relative population of Scotland has declined compared to that of England, and so one is trying to hit a moving target. It is only the combination of this particular set of circumstances with the formula that has resulted in higher per capita spending in Scotland. It is not an intrinsic quality of the formula.
Naturally, given that circumstances are different to those envisaged when the formula was devised - namely that the population of Scotland has declined relative to that of England - then it is sensible to consider whether to implement a different formula that would lead to a more rapid convergence and cope with such population shifts. Or indeed a different form of allocating spending that took account of geographical dispersion, if one so wished. This is as Lord Barnett says.
What I was taking issue with was the argument that the Barnett formula is somehow intrinsically beneficial to Scotland, and represents an intention to subsidise Scotland from England. It isn't. Had Scotland's population grown more quickly than England's since it was introduced then it is possible that per capita spending would now be higher in England than in Scotland - thanks to the Barnett formula.
But your argument merely confirms what others here are arguing. The formula is out dated and should not be part of the vow. Yes an agreement probably should have a formula attached to it, but it needs to be a new one based on current factors not one based on data that is 30 years out of date.
Following devolution the Labour government modified the Barnett formula to use up-to-date population estimates, so it does not use data that is 30 years out of date.
Just as an aside, I am now convinced that Richard Tyndall is right: the flip-side of devomax is simply EV4EL.
That is right and it is why the tories were happy to go even further than Labour in terms of tax raising powers. Labour is the one facing the crisis here. If the quid pro quo of devo max is that their cohort from Scotland is not much use to them in the HoC (as opposed to now where they get the best of both worlds, to coin a phrase) that is a major blow to them.
Cameron will be in a strong position to push this through now and the Labour/Lib Dem Coalition of vested interests will no longer be able to stop it. If this is in place before the next election, as Cameron is promising, the outcome of that election is going to be a lot more difficult to ascertain, let alone predict.
These lying toerags will not push anything through. They had 3 years to come up with something and best they could do was a pack of lies in the last week. They are so devalued as serial liars that they could not use pledge , so come up with "VOW". pathetic lying cretins.
As ever no intention of engaging. We have a coalition and the other half are lib dems who have no interst in giving more powers locally to Scotland and removing the power of Scottish MPs over the English. Scotland and England have done so much together it would be tragic to split but for the English Centre Right they have no self interest in not giving more devolution at the expense of taking away power of Scottish MPs over England.
The Yessers are really exposed as using it as an excuse tpo peddle an extreme lefty aganda on the poor hardworking Scots.
So England, with 85% of the UK's population is facing a £1bn black hole, while with 8% of the population in Scotland, the Scottish run NHS Scotland, responsibility of the SNP Government is facing a £0.5bn hole......proportionately, who would you say has done the better job?
putting the money in our chums pockets by privatising it.
Ukip have gone too far and crossed many lines here.This article reveals the true racist face of Ukip-be warned it is shocking and may act as a trigger.It is bigotry and bigot-baiting of the worst order revealing the true authoritarian side of Ukip-they are certainly not libertarians as they portray. On my way to Rotherham to fight Ukip,after I've finished with the Scots fascists.
"I have a confession this morning, which is that I am not enjoying covering the Scottish referendum. I should be. All journalists live for the chance to report on great events and they don’t come more momentous than the potential break-up of the UK.
But pretty much all reporters I chatted to yesterday agreed that the level of abuse and even intimidation being meted out by some in the ‘Yes’ campaign was making this referendum a rather unpleasant experience.
And whilst I am sure both signs have been guilty, the truth - uncomfortable as it is to say it – is that most of the heckling and abuse does seem to be coming from the Nationalists."
Awwwww poor diddums, he should get himself carted then and get a job he is fit for, another whinging southern jessie.
But those in Scotland who are quick to abuse and see bias around every corner might want to think about the face they are showing the world. And the march on the BBC, complete with strangely well-prepared banners with Nick Robinson’s face on them was frankly rather sinister.
Agreed not everyone in EWNI, but Scottish born UK residents , who would automtically qualify for Scottish citizenship, should have been given the vote. It would be one electorate, not a split one.
It's unlikely that all UK residents born in Scotland would qualify for Scottish citizenship. (They certainly don't all qualify for UK citizenship now.) But even if that were true, why choose the electorate on the basis of what it would be if Yes were to win? There was no serious alternative to having the electorate the same as it is for a SGE.
Because they would be affected by the result. It is a different situation from an election for a parliament covering a territory. As Carynx points out, it would require legislation but David Cameron could easily have done it,if he had been more on the ball. And indeed he should have done so. I know many expat Scots who are outraged at not having a say. They are mostly NO voters, but it would have been the right thing to have done.
Agreed not everyone in EWNI, but Scottish born UK residents , who would automtically qualify for Scottish citizenship, should have been given the vote. It would be one electorate, not a split one. Still, it wasn't done. Big mistake of Mr Cameron. The result will stand.
Again, UK legislation.
Mmmm, I see what you are getting at, but if you are using the prospect of being offered Scots citizenship (i.e. a passport) as a criterion to modify the basic rules, then surely that in common justice has to be extended to other Scots not living in the UK as they are also affected - everyone from my Aussie cousin (and, indeed, Rupert Murdoch) to my colleague in the Canadian badlands.
And remember that the putative qualification is to have a Scottish grandparent. Which makes the problem at least twice as bad.
Documentnation, verification, etc. etc.
(Also, that becomes an awfully old-fashioned romantic nationalist electorate. Imagine what the PBer would have said ...)
In any case, they are all getting a bonus, so to speak, which is strictly optional, as they can always keep their current UK (or Oz, or Vanadian, etc.) passports as I understand it. The converse of that argument, is that it modifies their UK nationality, which is fair enough. But that is true of anyone with a UK passport, and that returns to the issue which I raised at the start (I think it was the root of the legal challenge by the chap in York, which was rejected, but I could be wrong).
Wales quietly gained some more powers a couple of years ago, English devolution has been in a bit of limbo ever since the referendum rejection of a North East assembly.
I remember voting against that. An assembly with no defined purpose covering two distinct regions (Tyne and Wear, Teesside) was never going to work well.
You give a good summary of the problem. What we need at its simplest is fewer Scottish MPs following further devolution.
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
What democratic rights? Everyone has one vote. Their 'no' vote doesnt overturn a 'yes' majority in the country as a whole. Is everyone taking leave of their senses?
Only the Yes voters. If (if) the borders rebel then how does Salmond propose to keep them?
They are voting on whether to leave the UK or not. They are not voting on whether to leave Scotland.
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
What democratic rights? Everyone has one vote. Their 'no' vote doesnt overturn a 'yes' majority in the country as a whole. Is everyone taking leave of their senses?
Only the Yes voters. If (if) the borders rebel then how does Salmond propose to keep them?
They are voting on whether to leave the UK or not. They are not voting on whether to leave Scotland.
And should they not like the indyref result? How does Salmond keep them? Likewise the Shetlands. He has created the division.
Gordon Brown is like a man who has a fire burning inside himself again.When he is at his best his foes are completely pole-axed.Another unlikely indyref outcome is Gordon's coming in from his spell in the wilderness and he has come back one mean machine again.He is fighting Stalingrad in the manner of a Soviet tank commander in the Battle of Kursk. Gordon Brown is back in business.
Comments
They believe that all of Scotland should stay part of the UK, not that their bit should - their bit is part of Scotland.
I will lay you £10 that should Scotland vote to become independent and someone organised a vote to see if the Borders should separate from Scotland and become part of the rUK then that vote would be defeated by at least 80-to-20 at a minimum.
I think the asymmetry of our constitution is one of its strengths; it evolves, is flexible and recognises the considerable differences in populations size across the union. Coupled with a view that constitutional change should also have some groundswell of organic support from the public, I am not sure a separate English Parliament with its own building etc is needed. It may evolve as such over time, but EV4EL seems a good start. By all means, as I noted earlier, UK MPs in English constituencies could change title when looking at English laws only. They could have different salaries, all of which helps deal with the 'two types of MP charge'.
There remains an issue of English and Wales legislation; would a formal separation of Wales from England be too costly, counter-productive (in decoupling Wales from England in some way) and over distinct majorities. But as noted before, surely it is simply up to the UK government to ensure they get consent from the English 'Parliament' (ie. Grand Committee) a move which could empower the legislature?
It would also decimate the English economy as we plunged into fiscal crisis. Stupid example.
"I have a confession this morning, which is that I am not enjoying covering the Scottish referendum. I should be. All journalists live for the chance to report on great events and they don’t come more momentous than the potential break-up of the UK.
But pretty much all reporters I chatted to yesterday agreed that the level of abuse and even intimidation being meted out by some in the ‘Yes’ campaign was making this referendum a rather unpleasant experience.
And whilst I am sure both signs have been guilty, the truth - uncomfortable as it is to say it – is that most of the heckling and abuse does seem to be coming from the Nationalists."
Not sure whose fault it was but it didn't enamour me to the airport. Flights get cancelled sometimes - no problem, as long as people are given information.
I fear that all of the self-serving and piecemeal constitutional tinkering which has taken place since 1997 has proved to be bad. Ideally it should all be scrapped and we should start again. Devolution should be about the strengthening of local government and direct democracy, in which all parts of the UK are treated equally.
Well, f>ck that. I have always wanted a Yes but been resigned to a No. What really, really raises my ire is the prospect that we'll get the No, but it turns out to mean "Yes and we'll continue to send the English the bill".
Mmmm, I see what you are getting at, but if you are using the prospect of being offered Scots citizenship (i.e. a passport) as a criterion to modify the basic rules, then surely that in common justice has to be extended to other Scots not living in the UK as they are also affected - everyone from my Aussie cousin (and, indeed, Rupert Murdoch) to my colleague in the Canadian badlands.
And remember that the putative qualification is to have a Scottish grandparent. Which makes the problem at least twice as bad.
Documentnation, verification, etc. etc.
(Also, that becomes an awfully old-fashioned romantic nationalist electorate. Imagine what the PBer would have said ...)
In any case, they are all getting a bonus, so to speak, which is strictly optional, as they can always keep their current UK (or Oz, or Vanadian, etc.) passports as I understand it. The converse of that argument, is that it modifies their UK nationality, which is fair enough. But that is true of anyone with a UK passport, and that returns to the issue which I raised at the start (I think it was the root of the legal challenge by the chap in York, which was rejected, but I could be wrong).
That's not a union. That's charity.
Hope there isn't too much bitterness, whatever the result, but I fear there will be.
I have no knowledge of Scottish criminal law but I know all criminal laws need to be enforced.The Police have a statutory duty too to protect the public safety of citizens too.
Action is needed,not words.
This really does not bear any sensible analysis of course because the logical consequence is that they would always vote for higher spending so that their own constituents get the benefit of any increase.
I was surprised at the commitment to Barnett in the Vow and can only guess that this was the price that Labour insisted had to be paid. But what should be made clear is that this provides an envelope within which spending decisions are made, just as it is within the Scottish budget.
So England can choose whether to spend more on health or education or pensions or whatever within an agreed envelope and how they choose to allocate that spending is none of the Scottish members' concern and has no effect on their constituents. Of course all MPs will have an equal say in determining what size the envelope might be in any given year.
Not rocket science is it?
However, what I don't appreciate is the default assumption that England should expect always to be mulcted to appease one of the regions, and that if Scotland goes, we should privilege other regions in the same way.
It's called equity.
We have a coalition and the other half are lib dems who have no interst in giving more powers locally to Scotland and removing the power of Scottish MPs over the English.
Scotland and England have done so much together it would be tragic to split but for the English Centre Right they have no self interest in not giving more devolution at the expense of taking away power of Scottish MPs over England.
The Yessers are really exposed as using it as an excuse tpo peddle an extreme lefty aganda on the poor hardworking Scots.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11080732/Scottish-Nationalists-NHS-lie-is-the-biggest-in-a-war-full-of-whoppers-so-why-is-it-working.html
On my way to Rotherham to fight Ukip,after I've finished with the Scots fascists.
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2014/09/16/how-ukip-and-their-supporters-turned-an-abuse-scandal-into-political-point-scoring-trigger-alert-slatukip/
Gordon Brown is back in business.